Across five rural Indian states, thousands of women have joined Women Peer Groups, which are using everything from protests to pledging ceremonies as part of a UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women-supported violence-prevention programme for ethnic minority women.

Malti Tudu speaking about the women rights awareness to village women during a meeting at Simalbari village in Kishanganj Tehsil of Kishanganj district in Bihar, India. Photo: UN Women/Biju Boro

14 November 2018 (UN Women)* — You could call 20-year-old Malti Tudu a wedding crasher. Only her goal is to stop the wedding from ever getting started.

At least when the bride-to-be is a child.

“If all people start boycotting such weddings, it would definitely help eliminate child marriage,” says Ms. Tudu, from Simalbari village, Kishanganj district, in India’s Bitar.[1] state.

“People are needed during a marriage ceremony—a priest to perform the religious rites, musical band to play the music, cook to prepare the food for the guests, and guests to give their blessings to the newlyweds.”

Ms. Tudu, barely out of her teens at 20 years old herself, is one ofthe young women leaders from Bihar who are trying to stop child marriage in their communities.

In the officially categorized Santhal Scheduled caste and tribe (to which Ms. Tudu and the majority in her district belong), 74.1 per cent of women and girls are married before age 18, as opposed to 42.6 per cent from other communities.[2]

To prevent such weddings, Women’s Peer Group are drumming up support through meetings in which leaders ask participants to pledge that they wouldn’t have their daughters married underage—or attend such weddings. After the pledging ceremony, they lead rallies in their villages to spread awareness about the negative impacts of child marriage.

Globally, an estimated 650 millionwomen and girls alive today were married before age 18. Child marriage often results in early pregnancy, interrupts schooling, limits girls’ opportunities and increases their risk of experiencing domestic violence.

Ms. Tudu doesn’t shy away from new tactics. Once even took a group of women to visit the parents of a 16-year-old girl whose marriage was being arranged.

“Her parents shouted at us, saying that they are in-charge of their daughter’s future… that they had done it before and the wedding was attended by many people,” she explains.

Faced with their resistance, Ms. Tudu and her group asked everyone they could in the village not to attend the wedding.

They returned to the girl’s house a second time with more village support, and spoke to her, discovering that she wanted to finish her studies. When the group checked in again a few weeks later, her parents had called off the marriage and the girl was continuing with her studies.

I saved a life from getting destroyed”

Malti Tudu

“I saved a life from getting destroyed,” says Ms. Tudu, proudly. “Sensitization is the key to reducing such cases.”

She says the training on psychosocial support she received from the local organization Pragya, helped her build her skills in counselling and fuel her activism. The initiative is funded by the UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women (UN Trust Fund), managed by UN Women on behalf of the UN system.

Talamai Soren speaking about the women rights awareness to village women during a meeting at Lamba Basti village in Kishanganj district in Bihar, India. Photo: UN Women/Biju Boro

Similar efforts are underway in the Lamba Basti village, also in Kishanganj district, led by 35-year-old Talamai Soren. Married at the age of 15 herself, she knows all too well the kind of risks involved. She believes emphasizing education for girls is a good way to reduce the risk of child marriage, and the efforts of the Women’s Peer Group have reduced it to a certain extent.

In Baliadhangi village, 21-year-old Niska Pushpa Marandi also talks to women about the legal implications of child marriage and dowry transactions, which is a criminal offence and carries a jail term. “After taking the oath, none of you will get your underage children married off and you must also never attend weddings where legally underaged people are getting married or people are accepting and offering dowry,” she urges people to promise.

I feel good about the change that I have been able to bring”

Priyanka Kumari

These kinds of activities are being organized by the more than 2,800 rural women and girls who have joined the 100 Women Peer Groups set up across five Indian states (Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam and Himachal Pradesh) as part of a comprehensive UN Trust Fund-supported violence prevention programme for ethnic minority women.

Talamai Soren in Lamba Basti village in Kishanganj district in Bihar, India. Photo: UN Women/Biju Boro

According to Lorna Mesina from the UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women, “the Pragya project has a lot of local support and capitalizes on the strength of local community groups, like the village councils and women’s peer groups, which makes it sustainable.”

The programme uses awareness-raising and mobilization of the women and the community to act against violence. It also seeks to ensure more effective support services and responses, such as remedial counselling and legal and medical aid to survivors of violence.

Notes

[1] National Family Health Survey (2015-16)

[2] Mamta Health Institute for Mother and Child (2013)

——-

More #HearMeToo stories from Asia and the Pacific

]]>https://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/11/19/in-india-women-boycott-weddings-with-child-brides/feed/0baher kamalMalti Tudu speaking about the women rights awareness to village women during a meeting at Simalbari village in Kishanganj Tehsil of Kishanganj district in Bihar, India. Photo: UN Women/Biju BoroMalti Tudu. Photo: UN Women/Biju BoroTalamai Soren speaking about the women rights awareness to village women during a meeting at Lamba Basti village in Kishanganj district in Bihar, India.. Photo: UN Women/Biju BoroPriyanka Kumari. Photo: Pragya/Chitranka BanerjeeTalamai Soren in Lamba Basti village in Kishanganj district in Bihar, India. Photo: UN Women/Biju BoroFor me, the most powerful tool to raise public awareness on consensual sex is illustration...I am harnessing my visual design skills by illustrating the stories that our readers shareI don’t want to live in a society that does not treat men and women equally. There is no reason to do that. The younger generation has the responsibility to change the status quo.I don’t want to live in a society that does not treat men and women equally. There is no reason to do that. The younger generation has the responsibility to change the status quo.Yemenis in Free Fall One Year Since Blockadehttps://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/11/19/yemenis-in-free-fall-one-year-since-blockade/
https://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/11/19/yemenis-in-free-fall-one-year-since-blockade/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 09:27:31 +0000http://human-wrongs-watch.net/?p=134659Human Wrongs Watch

5 November 2018 — One year since the Saudi-led Coalition imposed a blockade on sea, land and air routes in Yemen, millions more are edging closer to famine and fatal disease.

A girl stands inside the Al Habbari informal settlement for displaced people in Sana’a. The settlement is on private land and receives a very small amount of support from its owner. Families living here lack basic services such as showers and latrines. Photo: Becky Bakr Abdulla/NRC, 30 August 2018

“The past 12 months have been a never-ending nightmare for Yemeni civilians. The parties to the conflict have consistently disavowed the laws of war and employed tactics that exacerbate suffering for civilian populations,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC).

The one-year-long partial blockade has prevented import of vital food, fuel and medical supplies, creating shortages on key commodities for a population in dire need. This had led to mass inflation and propelled a crisis already widely regarded as the worst in the world.

Fuel imports through Hodeidah, Yemen’s most important sea port, remain drastically low and insufficient for meeting needs. The past days have also seen fierce fighting and air strikes pick up in the vicinity of Hodeidah city threatening to further deteriorate civilians’ access to safety and aid.

12 million people are left at imminent risk of descending into famine while over one million cholera suspected cases have been identified in Yemen. Over 22 million people need some form of aid or protection across the country.

“We call on parties to this brutal conflict, the UN Security Council and individual member states to take immediate steps towards a ceasefire, the full opening of all of Yemen’s ports, the restoration of public services and stabilisation of the Yemeni economy in the interest of arresting an entirely man-made humanitarian catastrophe,” Egeland said.

“Khalas. There is no more future. Nothing to look forward to anymore,” said Yusuf Ali Ahmed, 28, when we interviewed him in September. Photo: Becky Bakr Abdulla/NRC

Facts:

On the 5th and 6th of November last year, the Saudi-led Coalition imposed a full blockade on Yemen’s airports, seaports and land borders, purportedly as a measure to stop the importation of weapons into Yemen following interception by the Saudi military of a ballistic missile fired at Riyadh.

Air and sea ports in areas under the control of the internationally-recognised government of Yemen (GoY) remained closed for eleven days, while critical sea ports along Yemen’s west coast were shut down for a period of more than seven weeks and only partially reopened thereafter.

12 million people are now at imminent risk of descending into famine.

More than 16 million people don’t have access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene and are extremely vulnerable to communicable disease outbreaks and factors that exacerbate the health causes of famine mortality.

As of the 26th of October, Yemeni Riyal was set at 720.18 to one USD by Internatinal bank of Yemeni.

World Health Organisation (WHO) reported 13,403 cholera cases as of October 2018. This is six times the number of reported cases as of mid-June (2,089), indicating the ongoing serious threat of a substantial new outbreak which has been exaccebated by displacement and economic deterioration.

18 November 2018 (Wall Street International)* – In January 1984, Dr. Seuss, one of the most popular authors of children’s books ever, who sold hundreds of millions of copies of his books, published The Butter Battle Book. It was a totally unexpected book from a children’s author―an overt political satire and protest against the nuclear arms race. Dr. Seuss considered it his best book, but one that ends pessimistically unlike most of his others.

The Butter Battle bookis full of references to the US-Soviet Cold War, from the building of the Berlin Wall to the deployment of more and more kinds of “advanced” weaponry.

The main characters are members of the Yooks, who appear to represent the US and NATO countries, while the antagonists, the Zooks, appear to represent the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries.

After a minor incident, the arms race between the Zooks and the Yooks escalates as weapons move up in sophistication from sling shots to the “Tough-Tufted Prickly Snick-Berry Switch,” the “Triple-Sling Jigger,” the “Jigger-Rock Snatchem,” and the “Kick-A-Poo Kid.” The latter was loaded with “powerful Poo-A-Doo powder and ants’ eggs and bees’ legs and dried-fried clam chowder”.

The Zooks then developed an “Eight-Nozzled Elephant-Toted Boom Blitz”, which was a machine that shoots “high-explosive sour cherry stone pits”; the Yooks counter with the “Utterly Sputter” which is intended “to sprinkle blue goo all over the Zooks”.

Eventually, both sides are able to acquire an extremely destructive nut-sized bomb called the “Bitsy Big-Boy Boomeroo.” The name makes it sound like it is a miniaturized tactical nuclear version of Little Boy and Fat Man, the uranium and plutonium bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Dr. Seuss story ends with the question as to who might drop the Bitsy Big-Boy Boomeroo first: “Who’s gonna drop it? Will you, or will he?” with the answer, “be patient, we’ll see… we will see.”

The book then finishes with the lines, “The End” (Maybe). In effect, as the two sides continued to build more and more destructive weaponry, Dr. Seuss was parodying the nuclear arms race and the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD) and its probable inability to prevent a nuclear war―particularly if one side believed it possessed a tactical and technical advantage over the other.

The Butter Battle Bookwas controversial, and it was banned from some libraries. A number of American Neo-conservatives argued that it promulgated the so-called liberal “moral equivalence” argument.

The latter perspective was dismissed by neo-conservatives who argued against liberal concepts of “cultural relativism” and “moral equivalence” that made it look like the US and Soviet Union were similar societies that could be equally criticized and that the struggle against Soviet Union had nothing to do with values such freedom.[1]

But the theme of Dr Suess’s story did not imply “cultural relativism” or “moral equivalence”; this was a total misinterpretation. The Butter Battle Bookwanted to show through poetic satire the absurd extent to which conflicting societies with different values and interests could go to defend themselves―to the point of actually perverting their own values and at the risk of destroying both societies, if not the whole world―due in large part to their unwillingness to reach realistic compromises with their adversaries.

In Dr. Seuss’ book, the tensions between the two societies and the escalating arms race were largely a result of opposing social customs. Each society buttered different sides of their bread.

The Yooks, who saw themselves as right and honest, buttered their bread on the topside; they saw the Zooks as being untrustworthy and having “kinks in their soul” because they buttered their bread on the bottom side. Even though it appears absurd to spark a major conflict over different ways to spread butter over bread, the metaphor has at least four possible meanings.

The first meaning is the geo-economic battle for sustenance, for money and for survival, for bread and butter. The second is the economic law of opportunity cost, how a society decides to spend its economic surplus on “guns” (or on warfare) impacts how much it can then spend on “butter” (or on welfare).

Somewhat similarly, the third meaning depicts the way one spreads one’s butter, i.e. how a country distributes or spreads wealth within a society, more or less equitably or inequitably. The fourth is the meaning of the term to “know which side of one’s bread is buttered” which is to say, “to be aware of where one’s best interests lie.”

In this perspective, each side, the Yooks and the Zooks, possess very different values and interests which made it very difficult to cooperate. So the way the two societies in The Butter Battle Bookspread their butter as cause of very dangerous conflict that appears to be started by a very trivial dispute is really not that absurd at all.

Cold War Political Warfare

In Dr. Seuss’s book, the colors of the Yooks are blue and the Zooks are orange. This appears to be in contrast with the usual Blue or else Red, White and Blue, for the Americans and Red for the Soviets.

Yet, whether by purpose or accident, these colors are the same colors as the two sides in the NATO war games, called Operation Able Archer, played by NATO in September 1983, which, coupled with the deployments of US Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe, came pretty close to setting off a nuclear war.

The 1983 NATO Operation Able Archer military exercises involved some 40,000 US and NATO troops. The war games envisioned a very unlikely scenario in which Blue Forces (NATO) defended their European allies after Orange Forces (Warsaw Pact countries) sent troops into Yugoslavia, before invading Finland, Norway and Greece.

In actual response to these exercises, Moscow went on a heightened nuclear alert. (Some somewhat similar exercises, called Trident Juncture 18, were recently played out in Norway in October-November this year with some 40,000 participants from more than 30 countries, including Finland and Sweden, which are not NATO members.)

But back in 1983, much like today after the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, and now after the deployments of new intermediate range ballistic missiles, the Novator 9M729 (or SSC-8 in NATO lingo), among other weapons systems, tensions between Washington and Moscow had been escalating after the Soviet Union had deployed of intermediate range SS-20s in 1977 in Europe and Asia.

In strategic terms, it was feared that Moscow could launch its intermediate range SS-20 missiles against NATO, Japanese, as well as Chinese, targets, while holding its long range intercontinental ballistic missiles that could strike US territory in reserve―in order to counter the possibility of a US retaliation.

In a word, Moscow could theoretically strike the Europeans, if not the Japanese as well as the Chinese, while holding the US nuclear deterrent at bay so that Washington would not counter-attack.

As tensions began to mount, Washington and Moscow began to engage in disarmament negotiations, but without an agreed upon result. In November 1983, US Ambassador Paul Nitze and his Soviet counterpart Yuli Kvitsinsky did work out a negotiated compromise, that was dubbed the “Walk in the Woods” proposal, but that proposal was rejected by the Reagan administration.

Paul Nitze’s proposed “Walk in the Woods” deal may have been supported on the Soviet side, but it had no backing from the highly ideological Reagan administration, who preferred to take the risk of nuclear war than accept diplomatic compromise and a “problem-solving” approach.[2] In short, Reagan administration neo-conservatives considered detested compromise with Moscow as a form of “appeasement.”

The Reagan administration refusal of the “walk in the woods compromise” eventually led NATO to engage in the “double track” decision by 1983. On the one hand, NATO offered the Warsaw Pact the option to engage in a mutual limitation of intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

On the other, NATO threatened to deploy Tomahawk Cruise and Pershing land-based intermediate-range nuclear weapons that could strike Moscow in minutes in western Europe―in case that Moscow refused to withdraw and destroy their SS-20s.

Since no deal was reached, the US and NATO opted to deploy US Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. Most crucially, the German Bundestag agreed to the deployment of those weapons on West German territory in 1983. This led Moscow to drop out of the INF talks.

Protests Against Nuclear War

The decision to deploy new and advanced nuclear weapons in Europe led to mass protests, with the European Nuclear Disarmament movement obtaining considerable popular support.[3] In addition, there were protests throughout the US. Poets spoke out against the threat of nuclear war.

The original version of my poem, “A Sub-Urban Landscape” that was published as One Nuke, Two Nuke, Blue Yook, Orange Zook(after Dr Suess) was first published in Peace or Perish: A Crisis Anthologyin 1983. [4] It was my first publication in a major poetry anthology. The book was described as: “The poets’ mobilization against the nuclear holocaust.”

At that time, I was working on my PhD Dissertation at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC. As I was seeking to compare the Cold War to previous major power conflicts in history, I went to the Library of Congress to begin my research.

I plugged into the search engine of that now ancient computer system, “World War I”, and several thousand books appeared in green letters upon the computer screen; I then plugged in “World War II” and even more books appeared. And I then plugged in “World War III.” Only ten books appeared. The tenth book was Peace or Perish: A Crisis Anthology.

Contrary to official propaganda against them, the protesters were not wrong. The US and Soviet Union came very closer to nuclear war. Seeing itself threatened by NATO-Japanese-Saudi “capitalist encirclement” aligned with China, Soviet paranoia at the time was illustrated by the apparently accidental shooting down on September 1, 1983 of a South Korean airliner—which was purportedly confused for a US spy plane.

Later in September 1983, an apparent launch of US Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles was detected by the Soviet Oko early-warning radar systems, but these were identified as a false alarm. The officer on duty fortunately decided to his disobey his official orders that demanded retaliation with a nuclear counter-attack―at great risk to himself in disobeying Soviet military protocol.[5]

The Trump Administration Dumps the 1987 INF Pact

Five years after the Reagan administration initiated its deployments of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe despite mass protests throughout much of the world, on December 8, 1987, Washington and Moscow signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF treaty) after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power.

The 1987 INF treaty led to the destruction of all land-based middle range missiles, but not sea-based intermediate-range systems. As the treaty was signed only by Washington and Moscow, it did not prevent China, Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, or other states, from building intermediate range missile systems.

But the Treaty was nevertheless a major step in forging the peace between Moscow and Washington and helped to bring an end to the Cold War.

While the first phase of the US-Soviet conflict during the Cold War did not end in nuclear war as many believed might happen―but which could have and almost did―Dr. Suess’s “maybe” is still relevant in the post-Cold War phase of US-European-Russian-Chinese-Japanese-Indian geopolitical conflict.

While the Cold War fortunately ended without a nuclear blast, the post-Cold War period is now entering a new phase that is potentially more dangerous. These new US-Russian-Chinese tensions are partly a result of the fact that the new forms of weaponry that are now being developed and deployed are much more accurate and much more usable.

In the 1980s, the Soviet Union feared US advances in stealth technology and the missile defenses of the Strategic Defense Initiative (or Star Wars as it was called at the time because it was supposed to be deployed in outer space); yet these latter systems were not well developed at that time. But now, stealth weaponry designed to avoid radar systems and advanced ground-based missile defenses that can help launch a first strike are largely operational and very accurate.

In October 2018, the Trump administration stated that it planned to drop out of the 1987 INF accord in part due to purported Russian violations of the INF treaty. Moscow has begun to deploy the intermediate range Novator 9M729 (or SSC-8 in NATO lingo), and plans to develop other weapons systems and modernize older ones.

And much like the George W. Bush administration, who, in 2002, unilaterally dropped out of the ABM treaty signed with Moscow due to the feared development of missile systems by third states other than Moscow, the Trump administration somewhat similarly has planned to drop out of the 1987 INF accord ostensibly due to the fact that the INF treaty does not impact the land-based missile systems of other countries, particularly those of Iran, North Korea, and China.

Moscow has claimed that it is not in violation of the INF Treaty and points to US missile defense systems in eastern Europe that could theoretically be used launch a first strike. It should be noted that had Paul Nitze’s original “walk in the woods” diplomatic compromise been accepted by the Reagan administration and the Soviets, these issues dealing with intermediate range missile would probably not have arisen in contemporary circumstances, at least not in the same way.

This is true as Moscow would have been able to deploy its missile systems in Asia. In fact, President Putin had already threatened to leave the INF treaty in 2007―unless it was renegotiated to include other states, including China, Pakistan and Iran.

But then again, much as I have argued in World War Trump, such issues probably would not have arisen at all in contemporary circumstances―if the Clinton administration had accepted the advice of Paul Nitze, one of the founders, after George Kennon, of US containment policy―not to enlarge NATO!!!

The Trump Administration’s New Nuclear Arms Race

President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, has been arguing for several years that the 1987 INF Treaty interferes with the United States ability “to preserve global security” and that other countries, like China, North Korea, and Iran, face no limits on their intermediate range missiles.

Prior to becoming Trump’s national security advisor (it was rumored Trump had initially rejected Bolton for the position because of his moustache!), Bolton argued that the United States “should see Moscow’s breach (of the 1987 INF Treaty) as an opportunity to withdraw” from the INF treaty so that the Pentagon can “have access to the full spectrum of conventional and nuclear options.”[6]

Bolton has also been pressing Trump not to renew the 2010 New Start treaty with Russia that limits the numbers of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and their delivery systems, and which provides for international inspections. The treaty is due to expire in 2021; and even though Putin has hoped to extend the New Start Treaty, NSC Advisor John Bolton has opposed even discussing the future of arms control between the two countries. [7]

The fact of the matter is that the US has initiated a major nuclear modernization program that will cost roughly 1.7 trillion dollars over the next 30 years―money that could be better focused on education, health care, social security, job creation, and other vital social needs including that of resolving social and political conflict.

And among other arms programs, the US Congress has mandated that the Pentagon begin to build a new ground-launched intermediate-range cruise missile, even though the US armed forces already possess numerous sea- and air-based systems, and new tactical nuclear weapons. This is all very dangerous and unnecessary.

Diplomatic Options

The dilemma is that US withdrawal from the INF Treaty will permit Russia and other states to continue their buildup of intermediate range ballistic missiles. And the decision puts the US at fault for dropping out of the treaty.

What are really needed are new multilateral arms reduction negotiations that can lead to a significant conventional and nuclear weapons reductions on all sides, while concurrently enhancing security and confidence. In addition to Russian missiles, the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, all possess intermediate range nuclear weapons.

Instead of adding more dangerous nuclear weapons and missile systems, the Trump administration should be trying to reduce, if not eliminate, all of such Weapons of Mass Destruction―much as Michael Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz, William Perry, Sam Nunn, among other political leaders, have argued for the past decade. [8]

And if nuclear weapons cannot be entirely abolished, then states should consider pledges of “no first use” of all Weapons of Mass Destruction; and they should renounce war as a tool of statecraft. [9]

There will be no abatement of this crisis unless the US and Europeans can find areas where the major powers, the US, Europeans, Russia, China, Japan and India can cooperate. This evidently will not be an easy task, but it can and should be attempted.

Unlike the Gorbachev period, Moscow is more likely to take a much harder line toward US policy, even once Putin steps down. And it looks like both Russia and China―as some 95 percent of Chinese nuclear weapons are intermediate range and aimed primarily at Taiwan, Japan, India, and South Korea―will get even tougher in response to President Trump.

The possibility of a direct clash between US, Russian, Iranian, Israeli, Turkish, and Saudi interests, for example, over Syria, or elsewhere in the wider Middle East, appears very plausible in the not so distant future, as does a potential clash between India and Pakistan, or between China and Taiwan, among other scenarios…

US sanctions and the threat to use force alone will not result in peace, but in counter threats and a renewed weapons buildup with more and more advanced systems of weaponry.

Without truly engaged and multilateral diplomacy, the diplomatic options will soon narrow even further, and the real possibilities of World War Trumpwill become a reality. Dr Seuss’s The Butter Battle Bookhad tried to make future generations aware of the real dangers of a nuclear arms race, but it appears no one has learned…

Endnotes

[1]“It is also a perfect emblem of the moral equivalence that neutered so many liberals during the Cold War: It assumes that the half-century conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was based on nothing more meaningful than a dispute over how people prefer to butter their bread–as if Communism weren’t a threat to liberty, but an eating preference.” John J. Miller, The Good “Dr.” The National Review (March 2, 2004).This is simply an incorrect interpretation of Dr Seuss’s book, but was also argued at the time the book came out in 1984.[2] See the demeaning comments of the neo-conservative Richard Perle to the pragmatic realist, Paul Nitze, in Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, Paul Nitze and A Walk in the Woods — A Failed Attempt at Arms Control accessed October 26, 2018, ; Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, The INF Treaty, Part II — Moving from Arms Control to Arms Reduction, accessed October 26, 2018, In the “Walk in the Woods” proposal, the Soviet Union would destroy 168 of its SS-20 launchers and 90 of its SS-20 force would stay in the eastern part of the USSR, aimed at China, and possibly Japan. The US would be allowed 75 launchers, but they would not include the Pershing IIs.[3] For a powerful anti-nuclear statement of the European Nuclear Disarmament movement, see Ken Coates, European Nuclear Disarmament accessed) October 26, 2018.[4] Hall Gardner, “A Sub-Urban Landscape” in Peace or Perish: A Crisis Anthology (1983), edited by Herman Berlandt and Neeli Cherkovski (San Francisco: Poets for Peace, 1983). Peace or Perish included poetry by Robert Bly, Robert Creeley, Diane di Prima, William Everson, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Carolyn Forché, Allen Ginsberg, Denise Levertov, and “other lesser-known poets of equal power, passion and vision” according to the back cover.[5] Pavel Aksenov, Stanislav Petrov, The man who may have saved the world BBC Russian (26 September 2013). Petrov appears to be yet another unsung hero who helped prevent nuclear war![6] John Bolton and John Yoo, An Obsolete Nuclear Treaty Even Before Russia Cheated,” Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2014.[7] John Bolton pushing Trump to withdraw from Russian nuclear arms treaty The Guardian (October 10, 2018).[8] Mikhail Gorbachev, A New Nuclear Arms Race Has BegunNew York Times (October 25, 2018), Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz, William Perry, Sam Nunn, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons, Wall Street Journal (January 4, 2007).[9] See Hall Gardner, World War Trump: The Risk of America’s New Nationalism(Prometheus Books, 2018) and Hall Gardner, IR Theory, Historical Analogy, and Major Power War(Palgrave-Macmillan, forthcoming).

Professor and Chair, ICP Department, American University of Paris. Hall Gardner is the author of “World War Trump: The Risks of America’s New Nationalism” and a collection of poems, “The Wake-Up Blast.”

]]>https://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/11/19/butter-battle-arms-race-the-new-post-cold-war/feed/0baher kamalThe role of Donald Trump in the New Post-Cold War“Butter Battle” Arms RaceThe-Fall-of-the-Berlin-Wall.jpgAnti-nuclear-protestButter-Battle-Arms-RaceBan-the-BombButter-Battle-Arms-RaceHall GardnerTreasures of Biodiversity – How Local Varieties Can Support Nutrition and Food Security, and Cope with Climate Changehttps://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/11/19/treasures-of-biodiversity-how-local-varieties-can-support-nutrition-and-food-security-and-cope-with-climate-change/
https://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/11/19/treasures-of-biodiversity-how-local-varieties-can-support-nutrition-and-food-security-and-cope-with-climate-change/#respondMon, 19 Nov 2018 08:16:02 +0000http://human-wrongs-watch.net/?p=134616

19 November 2018 (FAO)* — Biodiversity may sound complicated, but it’s a fairly simple concept: the existence of many different types of plants and animals makes the world a healthier and more productive place. A mix of genetics, species and habitats allows Earth’s ecosystems to keep up with challenges like population growth and climate change. Biodiversity is important to us because it plays a crucial role in food and nutrition security, and subsequently in human health.

About three-quarters of the genetic diversity once found in agricultural crops has been lost over the last century. Preserving our agricultural biodiversity is vital for coping with a changing climate and securing our future of food. | Photo from FAO.

Over the years, reduced access to land and natural resources, environmental degradation, climate change, globalization, urbanization, and homogenization of agricultural production (when high-yield crops and monoculture agriculture take the place of biodiversity) have caused a transformation of diets and lifestyles.

About three-quarters of the genetic diversity once found in agricultural crops has been lost over the last century, a change that has dramatically affected the role traditional foods play in feeding societies.

In many communities, the decreasing availability of diverse local foods and the increase of industrialized foods have caused a shift away from traditional food resources toward commercial and convenience foods. This trend has been associated with negative health impacts like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and other diet-related disorders.

Understanding and maintaining the key relationships between peoples and their cultures, biodiversity, traditional livelihood and knowledge systems are critical factors in ensuring sustainable food and nutrition security.

Although many traditional food practices have been lost, there is still a chance to recover and strengthen local food systems, so that we can leverage long-standing knowledge and practices to preserve biodiversity and benefit from it today and in the future.

The population of Pohnpei in Micronesia, for example, has access to a wide diversity of local foods (55 types of bananas, 133 of breadfruit, 171 of yam cultivars, and nearly 1 200 species of edible fish).

But the local diet has shifted away from traditional foods in favor of imported foods, causing the population of Pohnpei to suffer from a number of serious nutrition-related problems including vitamin A deficiency and obesity.

A programme aimed primarily at improving health and nutrition by introducing green leafy vegetables into people’s diets over a period of 15 years showed that little progress had been made because these vegetables were neither indigenous nor well-liked.

Indigenous foods such as Karat and other local yellow-fleshed bananas (containing the highest levels of beta-carotene in the world, making them treasures of biodiversity), and yellow-fleshed giant swamp taro varieties, were not originally promoted by the programme because there was no nutritional data available for them.

Now that proper study of Karat variety bananas has revealed their high pro-vitamin A content, efforts are under way to promote this indigenous food.

The outcome of the situation in Micronesia highlights the importance of making sure that biodiversity-oriented programmes seek solutions in local traditional foods whenever possible. One easy solution to the population of Pohnpei’s troubles lay in their own food history.

Collecting data on indigenous food sources adds to the population’s knowledge about the local food system, allowing them to rediscover nutritious options in backyard biodiversity.

Knowledge and awareness is one of the first steps of utilizing and maintaining biodiversity. In order to reap the benefits, we first have to know that they exist.

In Burkina Faso, and throughout the West African Sahel, rural women carefully collect the fruit, leaves and roots of native plants such as the baobab tree, red sorrel leaves, kapok leaves and tiger nut tubers for use in their families’ diets.

These plants are important supplements to the other portion of their diet made up of agricultural grains like millet and sorghum, which represent only one part of the nutritional spectrum. More than 800 species of edible wild plants have been catalogued across the Sahel so far.

Local knowledge of food biodiversity, demonstrated by the foraging women of Burkina Faso, sometimes includes aspects of gender dynamics. Men and women may be responsible for different crops, or varieties of crops, or be responsible for different tasks related to one crop.

Women often have detailed knowledge and preferences concerning crops, as well as a central role in seed selection, seed saving, and use of wild plants for food. They are also frequently in charge of minor food crops used for home consumption, rituals and medicinal properties. Men, on the other hand, tend to be in charge of the cultivation of commercial crops.

The expansion of men’s commercial enterprises may result in a reduction of women’s crops, leading to a decrease in the availability of local plants for food and medicine.

The shift indicates a possible decline in nutritional status, reduction in local plant diversity and overall environmental stability. Therefore, it is necessary to take both angles of agriculture into consideration when striving for a sustainable future.

One of the most important questions is how to increase food production to provide for current and future generations while improving biodiversity and reducing the strain on the environment. Good governance, enabling frameworks, and stewardship incentives are needed to facilitate mainstreaming of biodiversity.

Altogether, it’s a pretty big task. But if we want to have a hope of achieving food security in the future, we have to commit to improving and maintaining biodiversity today.

NEW YORK, Nov 16 2018 (IPS)*– A coalition of over 50 civil society organizations (CSOs), from more than 20 countries, have urged two of the world’s largest multi-billion dollar E-commerce retailers – Amazon and eBay – to stop marketing “dangerous and illegal mercury-based skin lightening creams.”

The protest is part of a coordinated global campaign against a growing health hazard in the field of cosmetics.

So far, the groups have reached out to the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO) and INTERPOL, the Lyon-based international law enforcement agency whose mandate includes investigating the sale of illegal health products online.

Michael Bender, International Coordinator of the Zero Mercury Working Group, told IPS internet moguls must stop breaking the law with their toxic trade in illegal cosmetics.

“Amazon and eBay have the responsibility and resources to prevent exposing their customers to this dangerous neurotoxin,” he added.

At the same time, said Bender, the FDA must enforce the law— no matter how big the retailer, since no one is above the law.

The CSOs have identified 19 skin products sold by these two companies that contain illegal mercury levels—even as the use of these products are skyrocketing globally, and in the US, and used worldwide mostly by women in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.

In a letter to Jeff Bezos, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Amazon, the groups say: “We strongly urge Amazon to self-police its website to ensure that cosmetics found to have mercury levels over 1 part per million (ppm) are no longer offered for sale to your customers worldwide.”

Since 1973, the FDA has warned against using cosmetics with over 1ppm mercury and detailed the risks. And mercury is known to state, federal and international agencies as toxic and harmful to human health.

In a letter to Devin Newig , president and CEO of eBay, the groups say the products advertised for sale on the e-Bay website are “unpermitted and illegal”.

The protest has taken added relevance against the backdrop of the upcoming second meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention on Mercury (COP2) which will take place November 19-23 in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Minamata Convention is an international treaty which has been signed by 128 UN member states and ratified by the legislatures of 101 countries.

Syed Marghub Murshed, Chairperson, Environment and Social Development Organization-ESDO, said “skin-lightening creams are pushing the youth towards a serious health risk and environmental havoc”.

He urged the government to take a regulatory and legislative step to protect future generations — and the environment.

Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, European Environmental Bureau Project Manager “Zero Mercury Campaign” and International Co-ordinator, Zero Mercury Working Group, told IPS that toxic trade in illegal high mercury skin lighteners is a global crisis which is expected to only worsen with skyrocketing global demand.

Sonya Lunder of the Sierra Club’s Gender, Equity and Environment Program, said internet sellers should be held to the highest standards for selling safe and legal cosmetics.

“Not only should they remove all illegal products from their websites immediately, but they must develop a system to ensure that toxic products remain out of their supply-chains,” declared Lunder.

The WHO says mercury is a common ingredient found in skin lightening soaps and creams. It is also found in other cosmetics, such as eye makeup cleansing products and mascara.

“Skin lightening soaps and creams are commonly used in certain African and Asian nations. They are also used among dark-skinned populations in Europe and North America.”

In Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Togo, 25%, 77%, 27%, 35% and 59% of women, respectively, are reported to use skin lightening products on a regular basis, says WHO.

In 2017 and 2018, 338 skin-lightening creams from 22 countries were collected by 17 NGO partners and tested for mercury, according to the group.

And 35 creams (10.4% of the samples) had mercury concentrations ranging from 260 – 16,353 parts per million (ppm).

These levels significantly exceeded not only regulations in many countries, but also new provisions in the Minamata Convention disallowing, after 2020, the “manufacture, import or export” of cosmetics with a mercury above 1 ppm.

The health consequences include damage to the skin, eyes, lungs, kidneys, digestive, immune and nervous systems.

The Mercury Policy Project, the Sierra Club and the European Environmental Bureau say they have purchased skin lighteners from eBay and Amazon websites.

The brands purchased included many previously identified as high mercury by New York City, the state of Minnesota, countries of the European Union, Singapore, United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Philippines, among others.

Of these, 19 products had illegal mercury levels, typically more than 10,000 times higher than the legal threshold of 1ppm.

In their letters, the groups are calling on Amazon and eBay to:

(1) Ensure the products they sell comply with government regulations; monitor lists of toxic skin lighteners identified US regulators; and keep them out of their inventory; and

(2) Add skin lightening cream products to a list of categories requiring prior approval before sale; and require that sellers provide documentation verifying that the products do not contain mercury and that the products are otherwise compliant with all applicable regulations.

Out of the 22 countries where the global cosmetics sampling took place, 14 have legislation or other requirements consistent with the Minamata convention provisions, the letter says.

Out of the 7 countries where high mercury samples were found, only 4 have legal requirements prohibiting creams with more than 1 ppm mercury content.

–In the Dominican Republic, one out of 3 samples had mercury above 1 ppm (33%), whereas in Indonesia it reached 31%.

— in Mauritius, one out of 15 creams was found to contain more than 1 ppm (7%).

— in the Philippines, 19% of the samples exceeded 1 ppm mercury content, while the Thai samples reached 63; and.

–in Trinidad and Tobago, 20% of the samples tested also exceeded the Minamata limits.

The Group’s research demonstrates that hazardous substance restrictions and accompanying risk communication strategies in many countries are incomplete and/or inadequately enforced.

”This thereby raises the risk of health effects, primarily to women.”

However, as the Minamata Convention on Mercury provision pertaining to cosmetics take effect after 2020, new opportunities for countries to reduce exposure to mercury from skin lighteners are emerging, including resources that may become available to Parties for the following, perhaps in collaboration with all levels of government and civil society:

1. Development and adoption of national government cosmetic regulations;

3. Enhanced harmonization and increased enforcement of by custom officials at borders;

4. Effective risk communication to consumers at risk and in particular pregnant and nursing mothers and woman of child bearing age;

5. Effective oversight of the marketplace;

6. Adoption of effective labeling guidelines to assure consumers are provided with the necessary information on hazardous substances, but also on alternatives, since they may contain other hazardous substances;

7. Effective cyber crime oversight of the internet, in global collaboration with Interpol, (since most lighteners are imported); and

8. Through national ad councils, assuring that non-discriminatory advertising guidelines do not reinforce negative social stereotyping on the basis of skin color.

Globally, mercury-based products are a big business. Demand is skyrocketing, especially in Asia, the Middle East and Africa, with sales of $17.9 billion in 2017, and projected to reach $31.2 billion by 2024, according to Global Industry Analysts.

By Eline Anker*

18 November 2018 (Norwegian Refugee Council)* — Did you know that more people have a mobile phone than a toilet? Marking world toilet day, we give you five reasons why you should care about toilets.

.

In crowded camps it is essential that people have proper sanitation facilities and good hygiene practices in order to prevent diseases. In order to address the needs, NRC is conducting the following activities in Mtendeli refugee camp in Tanzania: • Constructing family latrines • Providing basic hygiene items, such as soap • Conducting hygiene promotions on good hygiene practices • Providing drinking taps and latrines in schools Photo: Ingrid Prestetun/NRC

Almost 30 percent of the world do not have access to latrines. The lack of access deprives people of a good health, safety and dignity.

One of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is to ensure availability and sustainable management of sanitation and water for all by 2030. Part of this goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe toilet and that no-one practises open defecation.

Photo: SustainableDevelopment.un.org – SDG6.

For people forced to flee, access to clean water and appropriate sanitation facilities are amongst the most urgent of all needs.

This is why you should care about toilets:

1. Bad sanitation facilities kill 280,000 people each year

Without proper sanitation, water supplies can become contaminated and diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid can spread rapidly. On average, almost 1,000 children under five years die each day due to diarrhoeal diseases. Access for all to safe water, sanitation and hygiene would reduce global diseases with 10 per cent, according to the world health organisation.

We build proper sanitation facilities and supply safe drinking water

Run active disease surveillance and increased vigilance on water quality and sanitation practices during disease outbreaks

Ahmed is one of many Yemeni children who have received treatment for suspected Cholera. Photo: Nuha Mohammed/NRC

2. All women should be safe

Women and girls are particularly vulnerable when going to the toilet in the open. Many choose to wait until it is dark before they go, making them even more prone to abuse and sexual assaults. In schools, girls need private and functioning toilets to prevent them from dropping out.

We build and maintain safe and clean latrines or toilets, so women and girls, men and boys can feel safe.

Girls in Sittwe, Myanmar, use latrines during school hours. Photo: Sarla Varma/NRC

Toalet facilities provided by Oxfam in Mwaka, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Photo: Alex McBride/NRC

3. Children should have access to clean water and proper toilets in school

One in three schools do not have safe water or adequate sanitation. Without proper sanitation facilities children have to go to the toilet outside in the school grounds, this may cause girls to drop out of school or not come to school when they are menstruating. No child should have to end their education due to lacking toilets in school.

We support the right to education by ensuring that safe latrines and clean water at schools are accessible to all students and teachers.

Access to clean water and handwashing has become a luxury in Basra schools in Iraq. The water runs for only two hours a day and is not safe to drink. Photo: Tom Peyre-Costa/NRC

4. Toilets can help create renewable energy

Why not make your poo turn into something useful? Be creative!

In the refugee camp Kakuma, in Kenya, the need for latrines are enormous. In collaboration with UNHCR we transform human waste into charcoal briquettes. The briquettes are a low-cost alternative to wood charcoal for cooking.

5. Access to sanitation is a human right

In 2010, UN declared access to safe water and sanitation a human right. Still 4.5 billion people lack proper sanitation facilities. Access to sanitation and clean water is essential to human dignity.

We build toilets, promote safe hygiene and encourage displaced people to take an active role in our operations to improve sanitation facilities.

Photo: Ingebjørg Kårstad/NRC

In the Maratatu settlement in, the Democratic Republic of Congo there are few latrines, which results in open defecation and water-borne diseases spreading. NRC responds to the dire hygienic needs and have started work to construct 200 communal latrines. Photo: Ingebjørg Kårstad/NRC

16 November 2018 (Greenpeace International)* — With all we have to work for — species diversity, forests, climate, oceans, and basic justice — must we really be concerned about the state of Earth’s sand?

We might wonder why there would ever be a sand shortage, since deserts cover more than a third of Earth’s land surface, but wind-formed desert sand is too fine for construction.

Highly valued river and lake sand contains the right-sized particles for landfill and strong concrete. Dubai, on the edge of the vast Arabian desert, imports sand from Australia. Qatar imports over $6 billion worth of sand annually.

The immense growth of human infrastructure — booming cities, roads, concrete, glass, electronics, and shale gas fracking — now requires such a massive extraction of sand and gravel, that we are now destroying rivers, lakes and ocean ecosystems just to dredge up billions of tonnes annually.

Last year, in Sciencemagazine, Aurora Torres from the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research, with colleagues Jodi Brandt, Kristen Lear, and Jianguo Liu, published “A looming tragedy of the sand commons.” According to the authors, sand scarcity is now “an emerging issue … with major sociopolitical, economic, and environmental implications.”

Since 1900, the global volume of resources for buildings and transport infrastructure has been increasing by about 2.8% annually, doubling every 25 years. Sand and gravel represent about 79% of this material extraction, almost 29 billion tonnes a year, exceeding fossil fuels and biomass extraction.

Nations now mine about 13 billion tonnes of sand annually just for construction, second by weight only to water as the most-used resources on Earth, and this demand is growing by about half a tonne per year, expected to reach 20 billion tonnes annually by 2030.

The extraction of sand has become wild, reckless, and literally criminal. In most regions, sand is a common-pool resource, open to plunder. Sand remains mostly unregulated because extraction is so vast and because nations find it too expensive to regulate and enforce.

Common-pool resources such as sand are prone to the classic “tragedy of the commons,” whereby exploiters of the resource compete to extract maximum volumes without considering social or ecological consequences.

However, even where sand mining is regulated, sources are so widespread and accessible that illegal extraction and trade have become common. In India, criminal gangs have diverted rivers, destroyed aquaculture habitats, and devastated lakes and wetlands.

In 2016, the European Journal of Criminology, published a study of “environmental organized crime,” by Aunshul Rege and Anita Lavorgna, detailing “illegal soil and sand mining conducted by Indian and Italian organized crime groups.”

In some cases, those who have attempted to stop the plunder, have gone missing or have been found dead. According to the Indian supreme court, “the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining” represents a “disaster” for fish, aquatic organisms, and birds.

In southeast Asia, Singapore’s high-volume of sand imports, used to create landfill building sites, has led to international disputes with Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Cambodia. Singapore, the world’s largest sand importer, launched a vast fleet of ships to dredge and vacuum up millions of tonnes of sand from seabeds annually, destroying ocean habitat and obliterating over 20 entire islands.

The sand is used to expand Singapore’s land area by over a million square-meters every year. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam, have now forbidden or restricted sand exports to Singapore, although criminal gangs still extract sand from those regions.

In Cambodia, the dredging threatens mangrove forests, seagrass beds, rivers, estuaries, and the ocean floor. Researchers have linked sand mining to the decline of endangered species, including the Irrawaddy dolphin, spinner dolphin, and the rare Royal turtle.

Throughout Asian river systems, the rare Gharial crocodile has become critically endangered, threatened by sand mining’s erosion of river banks.

Vietnam, which has outlawed sand exports to Singapore, continues to lose forest and farm land to supply its own domestic demand. In the Mekong Delta, sand mining of river sediment is causing saltwater intrusion into rice paddies, farm land, and fresh water resources. Even so, Vietnam is on pace to exhaust its local construction sand supplies within three years.

Collapsing bridges, vanishing porpoises

In Africa, China, and Southeast Asia, the extraction of sand from rivers and lakes creates standing pools of water that have become breeding sites for malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Health officials also suspect that such pools contribute to the spread of Buruli ulcer outbreaks in West Africa and other emerging diseases.

Meanwhile, fishermen and entire fishing communities have complained that dredging ships are destroying fishing grounds and fish-breeding estuaries. In some communities, fishermen have had to take work on sand barges after losing their fishing income.

A 1998 study in California showed that every tonne of sand removed from a California river caused $3 in infrastructure damage, including the failure of roads, dikes and bridges. In 2000, in Taiwan, sand mining caused a bridge to completely collapse.

The following year, in Portugal, due to sand mining, a bridge collapsed as a bus passed over, killing 70 people; likewise a weakened bridge collapsed in India in 2016, killing 26 people.

In China, during the 1980s and 90s, companies mined construction sand from the Yangtze River.

Thousand-foot sections of riverbank routinely collapsed, shipping lanes were blocked, and water supply equipment became clogged with sediment.

Finally, in 2000, as bridges began to weaken, the Chinese government banned sand mining on the Yangtze River, and miners moved operations up river to Poyang Lake in Jiangxi Province, 500 kilometers southeast of Shanghai. We won’t be surprised by what happened next.

China’s largest freshwater lake became the world’s largest sand mine. Hundreds of dredgers extract about 10,000 tonnes of sand an hour from the lake, 236 million cubic metres annually, thirty-times more sand than flows in from tributary rivers.

Dredgers widened the outflow channel, increasing drainage into the Yangtze, and Poyang’s water level dropped so much that huge shipping vessels and abandoned fish boats now sit stranded on dry land.

Migratory birds — cranes, geese and storks, and other species — have been displaced from Poyang Lake. According to recent surveys, the sand dredging has pushed the rare Yangtze finless porpoise to “the brink of extinction.”

In 1991, when sand dredging began in the lake, approximately 4,000 porpoises lived in the Yangtze system, including Poyang and Dongting lakes. A 2006 study estimated about 1,800, and a 2012 study estimated about 1,100 remaining. Unregulated fishing and 20 billion tonnes of waste discharged into the Yangtze system every year contribute to the decline.

Most of the sand dredged from the Yangtze/Poyang waterway goes to Shanghai, which has has been adding half-a-million new residents annually. Sand is also extracted for hundreds of kilometers of new roads, for glass, and concrete infrastructure, including the expansion of Shanghai Pudong airport.

As China exhausts its domestic sand supplies, sand companies seek foreign sources. In 2011, Mozambique allowed Haiyu Mining, a subsidiary of the giant Jinan Yuxiao Group, to open sand mines in the fishing community of Nagonha.

Sand mining buried wetlands, blocked the lagoon channel to the ocean, changed the flow of fresh water, and created flash flooding. Houses were washed away, fishermen lost boats and gear, and the community lost its modest tourism income. The community of Nagonha was virtually destroyed for sand.

Limits to growth

According to a 2016 paper in the Journal of Industrial ecology, “Global Patterns and Trends for Non‐Metallic Minerals used for Construction,” the “environmental burden” of sand extraction has followed the growth patterns of population, gross domestic product (GDP), and particularly “driven by unprecedented urban growth.”

According to the UN, the world’s urban population has quadrupled since 1950, reaching 4 billion today, and expected to approach 7 billion by 2050. The Tokyo, Japan metropolitan area is now approaching 40-million inhabitants. Fast-growing cities, such as Delhi, India and Lagos, Nigeria are on pace to reach 60 million inhabitants by 2050.

About three thousand years ago, when the Earth had already suffered several millennia of anthropogenic soil destruction, the entire human race comprised 60 million people. By 2050, there could be at least five cities that size: Delhi and Lagos; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Karachi, Pakistan; with Tokyo, Shanghai, Mumbai, Mexico City, New York City, and São Paulo not far behind. This urban expansion requires landfill and concrete, which translates into a massive demand for sand and gravel.

This year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) presented a “Global Material Resources” reportat the World Circular Economy Forum in Yokohama, Japan. The report projected raw material extraction “to double by 2060 with severe environmental consequences.”

Sand, gravel, and crushed rock account for more than half of these materials. “[A]s the global economy expands and living standards rise,” the report states, we will witness “twice the pressure on the environment that we are seeing today.”

Questions remain, regarding whether or not the Earth can even sustain such human population and economic growth over the next forty years, and how the environmental movement can or will respond.

15 November 2018 — The contrast between what she said and the way she said it was stark. In a subdued, almost reticent way, Theresa May told the nation on the steps of 10 Downing Street on November 14 that she “believed with her head and her heart” in the draft withdrawal agreement she had negotiated with the EU. The cabinet also backed it, she told us.

As subsequent cabinet resignations have proven, there was no such agreement. The whole address looks increasingly like it could be the first part of a long and drawn out resignation letter.

It was also the culmination of May’s ultimate folly: the crumbling of her absurd red lines. These red lines – leaving the customs union and the single market, ending the jurisdiction of the ECJ – were never compatible with not having a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, nor with a smooth transition in general.

More painfully, these red lines were almost totally unnecessary. These issues were not on the 2016 referendum ballot. History will be a harsh judge as to why May and her team – stand up, Nick Timothy– chose to go down this path.

It has been clear for a long time that there is little appetite for these red lines especially in light of the potential impacts (a border in Ireland and disruption to trade to name two). But the root of the problem is this: from the moment she became PM, May played to a particular gallery: the Hard Brexiteers within her own party.

It was to these people, first and foremost, who May spoke. Despite appeals to the hallowed “will of the people”, it was the will of the Brexiteers that May appealed to from late 2016 onwards.

But now that approach has crumbled on contact with the reality of UK and EU politics. Not only does this deal achieve the remarkable feat of being both the product of her red lines and an immediate transgression of them, May’s appearance before parliament the day after the Withdrawal Agreement was published showed one thing clearly: her deal has not only divided her cabinet but has no support in the Commons.

What next?

The question now, then, is what happens next, and there are two areas to focus on. First, what happens to the government and the Conservative Party. With rumours that the 1922 Committee has the requisite number of letters (48) to trigger a leadership challenge circulating, and with rumours that even May and her team now realise that “no Brexit” is an option, one thing is clear: business as usual is not possible.

This could mean an eventual vote of no-confidence, ousting May, and even another general election (though the latter is unlikely given that it would require two thirds of the Commons to vote for it).

It could also mean that May hangs on, and the deal is voted down, and the UK careers towards an exit from the EU with no deal. One thing is for sure: parliamentary gridlock and uncertainty is the new reality.

The second area to consider is what the Labour Party will now choose to do. Will Jeremy Corbyn make the same mistake as May has done, and elevate the immediate politics of his party – including the politics of which Labour constituencies voted Leave – above the national interest?

Or will he do the one thing the UK has so badly lacked over the last two years: put all personal and party politics aside and face the reality of just how difficult the implementation of the result of the 2016 referendum was.

If the Labour Party was to choose the latter course, it has to address three key issues head on. First, just how flawed the idea of the 2016 referendum was in the first place – the binary Leave/Remain ballot paper on such a complex issue was asking for trouble. Second, how problematic the Leave campaign itself was.

Finally, it must deal with a much more deep-seated and intractable issue in UK politics: the framing of the EU in the political community of the UK. Ever since joining in 1973, both sides of the political divide have misrepresented what the EU actually is and the idea that the UK is exceptional and worthy of special treatment. Worse, when politically expedient, they have blamed the EU for various domestic woes.

This litany of delusion on the part of the UK political establishment needs to be taken on by a party or a leader who has no ideological axe to grind, has no gallery to play to, has only the desire and the ability to lead in the greatest sense of the idea of leadership – taking many millions of people with you on a journey they may disagree with in the name of the national interest.

It remains to be seen whether Corbyn or Labour is up to this challenge. But there is no doubt that no matter what happens in the Commons in the next few days, in the long term, the emergence of a political figure or movement that can do exactly this is what the UK most desperately needs.

18 November 2018 (teleSUR)* – Amongst the hundred of Central American Migrants denied passage to the United States, and currently stranded at the border border in Mexico, some are taking offers for work by their host government.

“If we had work, we would stay. This has been very tiring,” Orbelina Orellana told Reuters.

“I cry a lot to not be able to feed them as I’d like…I just want an opportunity,” said Orellana, a 26 year-old mother of three, who is currently situated at a shelter in Mexicali, which shares a border with California.

Some Mexican leaders see economic integration of migrants as a contribution to maintaining social order as well as a way to fill up vacancies, “We know the situation that these people face in their country.

But we also favor order in order to integrate them into the labor sector, because only in Tijuana do we have a demand in the maquiladora industry for 5,000 people,” Ulises Araize, President of the Association of Human Resources Industry in Tijuana, told Reuters.

For his part, Tijuana’s mayor has recently called for a referendum to limit the entry of Central American migrants, calling them a “hoard” and stoking negative reactions against these people who are facing a dire humanitarian situation.

“We don’t want you here!” and “Migrants are pigs,” are some of the negative reactions that Tijuana residents have shouted at migrants in the Mexican city, according to the San Diego Tribune.

Nearly 3,000 migrants, the majority Honduran, have arrived in Tijuana as of late. The Mexican government estimates another 7,000 could be arriving soon, according to the same publication.

Mexican president, Enrique Peña Nieto has previously offered work to caravan migrant’s who are able to obtain a legal status within the country, in the manufacturing, assembly and processing industry known as “maquiladora.”

A 2018 report conducted by the International Labor Organization (ILO) highlights that the maquiladora industry is a sector of the economy where workers are paid “low wages” to a “number of low skilled workers…to assemble products for shipments to the United States, largely on behalf of multinational firms,” and that the wages they offer are less than those of other industries in Mexico’s manufacturing industry, where wages account for “the greatest part of their value added.”

15 November 2018 (SIPRI – STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE)*— While trying to save the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, some European leaders have stepped up pressure on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, simultaneously demanding talks and threatening sanctions. Iran—which sees ballistic missiles as crucial to the country’s defence—has responded by saying that its missile programme is non-negotiable.

Although Iran’s continuing development and export of missiles was one of the United States President Donald J. Trump administration’s main arguments for withdrawing from the JCPOA—missiles are neither part of the agreement, nor are they subject to any multilateral international treaty.

Nevertheless, missiles were mentioned in UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA in July 2015 and which calls on Iran ‘not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons’ until 2023.

While there is no consensus on how to interpret this ambiguous formulation—with Iran arguing that its conventional missiles are not designed to carry nuclear weapons—Iran’s reported missile transfers violate the 2015 UN arms embargo on Yemen (UN Security Council Resolution 2216).

European powers deserve credit for their efforts to maintain the JCPOA, but their current coercive approach to Iran’s missiles is counterproductive. This topical backgrounder highlights the need to dissect international concerns about Iran’s missiles by distinguishing between potential range extension, development of the existing short- and medium-range missiles, and missile transfers to regional allies.

It also proposes ways for the European Union to alleviate the concern that Iran may develop intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and to address the drivers of Iran’s regional missile policy.

Increased Western focus on Iran’s missiles

When justifying US withdrawal from the JCPOA on 8 May 2018, President Trump referredto the deal’s failure ‘to address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads’.

In the same remarks, he explained that the USA would continue ‘working with our allies … to eliminate the threat of Iran’s ballistic missile program’. The administration has also called for Iran to ‘end its proliferation of ballistic missiles’ in the region and requested that the UN Security Council punish the country for its ‘provocative and destabilising missile launches’.

Europeans have set themselves apart from the Trump administration’s policy on the JCPOA and are struggling to protect their businesses from the extraterritorial sanctions being imposed as a result of US withdrawal. At the same time, France, Germany and the United Kingdom—the so-called E3—have adopted a tougher approach on Iran’s missiles.

This approach has been spearheaded by France, whose foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, warned on 30 August 2018 that Iran ‘cannot avoid’ talks on its missile programme. Le Drian hasalso arguedthat that the range of Iran’s missiles ‘goes beyond Iran’s need to defend its borders’.

In spring 2018, the E3 urged the EU to impose sanctions on Iran because of its ballistic missile tests and role in backing the Syrian Government. They have referred to the ‘proliferation of Iranian missile capabilities throughout the region’ as ‘an additional and serious source of concern’. Like the USA, the E3 have viewed Iran’s satellite launches as a springboard for ICBM development and have responded accordingly.

Iran’s perspective

Iranian officials have responded to the West’s hard line on Iran’s missiles by statingthat its ‘military capabilities are not up for negotiation’ and vowed to further boostmissile development.

This is hardly surprising. Since the 1980s, when Iraq attacked Iranian cities, missiles have played a key role in Iran’s national security approach. Missiles serve as a counter to the overwhelming military capabilities of regional rivals (notably Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates).

The rivals’ long-range strike capabilities mainly rely on Western-supplied air forces, which are often equipped with cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs. In contrast, Iran—whose aging air force mostly dates back to before the 1979 Islamic Revolution—has sought to maximize self-sufficiency in the production of ballistic missiles.

Iran’s medium-range missiles, which are able to reach Israel and US military bases in the region, serve to deteran attack against Iran. The threat of attackwas particularly highlighted with the escalation of the nuclear crisis in 2005–12, as Israel and the USA threatened military action against Iranian nuclear facilities.

To ensure deterrence, Iran is likely to continue testing its missiles to improve accuracy and to ensure an ability overcome missile defences, which have been deployed in increasing numbers by the Gulf Arab states and Israel.

As Iranian defence minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami said in August 2018, ‘given the enemy’s efforts to boost anti-missile capabilities, we need to increase our missiles’ accuracy and functionality’. Iran’s interest in developingcruise missiles can also be viewed from this angle.

Therefore, even if the political context were more favourable, there would be little room for negotiating Iran’s missile programme. The situation is further constrained by a lack of trust following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and its campaign against the Iranian Government.

As Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashaniwarned in May 2018, the enemy would not leave the country alone even ‘if Iran gives up all weapons and defends itself with rocks like Palestine’.

Yet, Iran has recently shown restraint on its medium-range missile testing, with the last confirmed test occurring in January 2017. However, Iran has test-fired short-range ballistic missiles as part of military exercises and responded to terrorist attacks on its soil by launching missiles to Syria.

Considering missile range limits

Although curbing Iran’s missile programme does not seem like a realistic goal under the current circumstances, the longest-standing Western concern—namely the possibility of the country developing an ICBM—would be relatively easy to address.

This is because Iran has already set a 2000-kilometre range limit on its ballistic missiles. As Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, explained in June, there is no need to further extend the missiles’ range because their strategic targets are already within reach.

When it comes to range, Iran thus regards its existing ballistic missile arsenal as sufficient for regional deterrence. Iranian officials’ repeated references to this policy appear to be supported by evidence.

The first step in addressing concerns surrounding the possibility of an Iranian ICBM would be to simply take note of this self-imposed limit. Although the current political context is hardly conducive to diplomatic initiatives, in principle the next step might be to try to codify the limit into an agreement involving reciprocal measures, such as civil and technical cooperation on Iran’s space programme.

Such an approach is recommended by a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which also lists technical measures to increase confidence that Iran’s satellite programme does not serve military purposes.

The regional dimensions

While additional assurances on range limits could put an end to speculation about an Iranian ICBM, they would not address the regional dimension, which has received unprecedented attention in the past two years.

In September 2018 Brian Hook, the Senior Policy Advisor to the US Secretary of State and Special Representative for Iran, described Iran’s ballistic missile program as ‘an enduring threat to our allies and partners, including Israel’, pointing to precision-guided missiles as a particular concern for the region. Hook also accused Iran of supplying missiles to its proxies.

A UN panel in January 2018 found that Iran failed to prevent the direct or indirect supply of missiles and related equipment to Yemeni Houthi rebels, in non-compliance with the 2015 arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 2216. In particular, the panel highlighted Iran’s involvement in the development of an extended short-range missile known as Burkan 2H, which the rebels have fired towards Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

In Syria, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards—alongside Russia and Hezbollah—have supported the President Bashar al-Assad’s government against ISIS and various rebel groups. In turn, the rebels have been backed by Turkey, the USA and several Arab countries.

Israel, for its part, has launched air strikes against Iranian forces in Syria, with the stated aim of thwarting its supply of precision missiles to Hezbollah and countering Iran’s military presence in the country.

One of Iran’s key interests in Syria is to ensure the continuation of the policy of asymmetric deterrence against Israel, which relies on using the Syrian land corridor for transporting arms to the Lebanese Hezbollah. Similar logic can be seen to explain recent Iranian transfers of short-range missiles to Iraq.

The latter policy seems to be aimed at providing an additional layer of deterrence, reflecting increased concerns over a potential US-Iranian military confrontation. According to an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commander, ‘We have bases like that in many places and Iraq is one of them. If America attacks us, our friends will attack America’s interests and its allies in the region.’

While its arms transfers are far from unproblematic, Iran is not the only country providing support to conflict parties, nor are Iranian missiles the most lethal weapon in the region; in Yemen, for example, the majority of civilian casualties have been caused by the Saudi-led coalition’s airstrikes. Hence, targeting Iran’s missiles while ignoring the broader conflict dynamics and military asymmetries is unlikely to significantly improve regional security.

The need for regional arms control and security dialogue

The complex problems in the Middle East make banning one weapon system in the hands of one actor an ineffective solution. Rather, the underlying conflict dynamics should be addressed as part of a comprehensive arms control and regional security process.

While any dialogue including all Middle Eastern countries—let alone the longer-term objective of a regional security mechanism—might sound overly ambitious, attempts towards such a process are not without precedents.

In 1992–94, many Middle Eastern states, including Israel, were engaged in Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) talks following the 1991 Madrid peace conference. While the ACRS talks eventually collapsed due to Egyptian–Israeli disagreements over nuclear disarmament, they made progress in the area of confidence-building measures.

More recently, Middle Eastern states—including Iran—were at the same table in 2013–14, as part of the informal consultations aiming at a conference on the establishment of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the region. Although those plans came to nought, the multilateral consultations alone—which were reportedly carried out in constructive spirit—were a historic achievement.

As part of this process, Israel implied that instead of nuclear disarmament it might be ready for more general regional security discussions, wherein ‘all regional states engage in a process of direct and sustained dialogue to address the broad range of regional security challenges in the Middle East’.

It could be added that—prior to the election of President Trump in 2016—the Gulf Arab states and Iran had reportedly explored the possibility of starting a dialogue concerning Persian Gulf security. The current Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has repeatedly highlighted the need for such a dialogue.

Alleviating international concerns: A role for Europe

Europe could play an important role in addressing international concerns about Iran’s missiles. However, this requires—first and foremost—distinguishing between the various aspects of Iran’s missile activities.

Concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile range could be significantly reduced if the E3 would acknowledge the existing 2000-km limit. Given that such concerns are closely linked with nuclear non-proliferation, Iran’s continued implementation of the JCPOA should also be factored in here.

Although the codification of existing limits as part of a mutually beneficial agreement—such as the above-mentioned idea of space cooperation—seems unrealistic in the current political context, the idea might be worth exploring as a basis for future cooperation.

Regarding regional concerns, one must distinguish between missile testing and missile exports. As noted above, and despite recent and misleading references to ‘intensified testing’, Iran has exercised restraint in this respect during the past two years, particularly regarding medium-range missiles.

Given that there is no definitive way to judge whether a missile is nuclear capable—let alone whether it was intentionally designed as such—missile testing is also not a clear breach of Resolution 2231, which does not prohibit conventional deterrence.

Missile transfers that violate UN Security Council resolutions and create anxiety in other Middle Eastern countries are more problematic from the perspective of both international law and regional security. While an international response is, therefore, warranted, it might end up doing little to change the situation.

If the E3 and other European countries wish to address the regional dimension of Iran’s missile activities, they might make a more tangible impact by promoting security dialogue amongMiddle Eastern countries. Europe—having experienced a historic transition from a state of war to one of cooperative security, as well as having diplomatic relations with all regional countries but Syria—would be in a good position to champion such a process.

For starters, the EU could seek to engage other Middle Eastern countries in the dialogue it is reportedly having with Iran on regional issues and ballistic missiles. Instead of beginning with the sensitive issue of Iran’s missiles, the dialogue could start by exploring threat perceptions and potential confidence-building measures.

This could eventually pave the way for discussions on regional conflicts, a shared code of conduct and, eventually, arms control—including not only Iran’s missiles, but also other military capabilities in the region. Although talking about missiles, missile defences and fighter aircraft might seem incongruent, these topics must be addressed together to pay equal attention to the security needs and concerns of all countries in the region.

As the fate of the JCPOA demonstrates, the EU’s rather limited focus on non-proliferation in the Middle East is insufficient. Although the deal succeeded in addressing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, it was weakened by regionalthreat perceptions regarding other aspects of Iran’s conduct.

A punitive approach to Iran’s missile activities will not fix this problem. Instead, Europe could seek to create a more sustainable foundation for future arms control efforts by promoting a regional security mechanism in the Middle East. In addition to arms control, such an approach could promote peace and prevent conflicts, thus also serving European interest in addressing the root causes of war and refugee flows from the region.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Dr Tytti Erästö is a Researcher in the SIPRI Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-proliferation Programme.